Methods and apparatus to assess and enhance a student&#39;s understanding in a subject

ABSTRACT

An educational method and system that assess and enhance a student&#39;s understanding in a subject. Based on the student&#39;s understanding, individually-tailored tests are generated, whose difficulties are geared towards the student&#39;s level of understanding in the subject. Thus, the student not only can use the tests to prepare for an examination, but can also use the tests to learn the subject. The system includes a score generator coupled to a recommendation generator. In one preferred embodiment, the recommendation generator includes an inference engine, and in another preferred embodiment, the recommendation generator includes a pre-requisite analyzer. Both the pre-requisite analyzer and the inference engine in the recommendation generator can generate recommendations based on the student&#39;s test results. The recommendation generator is coupled to a report generator and a question generator. The report generator accesses a report format. Based on the recommendations and the report format, the report generator generates a report, which can provide assessment of the student&#39;s understanding in different areas of the subject, and which can provide action items to improve on the student&#39;s understanding in the subject. The question generator, based on the recommendations, generates a number of questions. The student can take this new set of questions to further enhance her understanding in the subject.

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.08/968,951, filed on Nov. 12, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,934,909, whichis a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/618,193, filedon Mar. 19, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,779,486, and incorporated byreference into this application.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to education and moreparticularly to using tests to assess and to enhance a student'sunderstanding in a subject.

The foundation of a vibrant society depends on education. In order tostrengthen this foundation, every year the U.S. Government has pouredbillions of dollars into the educational system. Money has been spent inareas such as laboratory facilities, educational materials, therecruiting of teachers and using computers to enhance our educationalsystem. However, for decades, the way to test a student has remained thesame.

Almost all forms of education require testing because testing can assessa student's understanding in a subject. Testing can also serve as aneducational aid. For example, one can learn a subject by taking tests ifthe tests are well designed and if the student can meticulously analyzethe solutions to the questions.

For most national tests, such as the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT),the questions are in the form of multiple choices, and are automaticallygraded to produce a report. Typically, grading and report generating arecomputerized. For SAT, the report includes two scores--one indicating astudent's mathematics skill, and the other the student's verbal skill.It is impossible to decipher from the two numbers the areas where thestudent are weak. For example, if his mathematics score is low, it isnot clear if that is because he is weak in algebra or geometry or both.

If the student is not satisfied with his scores, he may go for aremedial class. Typically, in such a class, the student takes many testswith many other students. The tests for all the students in the classare the same, because it is very difficult to manually tailor each testto the understanding of each student. After a test, a student comparesher test results with her previous results to see if she has improved.Again, the comparison is quite superficial. Usually, the studentcompares the final grades of the tests--if the recent test score ishigher than a previous test score, then she assumes that she hasimproved. This type of simple feedback on one's performance is not veryhelpful to the student.

A typical testing process and a typical learning process have a lot ofsimilarities. If a high school student is in an algebra class, thestudent studies the basic concepts, and then works on a number ofassignments, which are the same for all the other students in his class.Again, the questions are not specifically tailored to each student'scapability. For a studious student, he would re-work the wrong answersuntil he gets them correct. However, it is not clear if he has finallyunderstood the concept, or if he has worked on the same assignments somany times that he has either memorized or correctly guessed theanswers. These standard assignments lack the feedback that is requiredto enhance understanding.

It should be apparent from the foregoing that there is still a need fora system and a method to more precisely assess and to enhance astudent's understanding in a subject. There is also a need to generatetests that are specifically tailored to a student's weaknesses in thesubject, which again would help a student learn. Furthermore, it isdesirable that the learning process takes into account the student'spast performance to have a better indication of the student's progressin understanding the subject.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides an educational method and system thatautomatically assess and enhance a student's understanding in a subject.Based on the student's understanding, individually-tailored tests aregenerated, whose difficulties are geared towards the student's level ofunderstanding in the subject. Thus, the student not only can use thetests to prepare for an examination, but can also use the tests to learnthe subject. In one preferred embodiment, the assessment and theenhancement take into account the student's past performance.

In another preferred embodiment, the invented method and system arebased on the latest test results from the latest test taken by thestudent on the subject, which is divided into line-items. In yet anotherpreferred embodiment, at least one line-item is more difficult thananother line-item. The latest test includes questions with differentline-items.

The invented system includes a score generator coupled to arecommendation generator. In one preferred embodiment, therecommendation generator includes an inference engine, and in anotherpreferred embodiment, the recommendation generator includes apre-requisite analyzer. The recommendation generator is coupled to areport generator and a question generator.

The score generator preferably accesses the student'sprior-to-the-latest test results in the student's test results table,and the latest test results as to generate one overall score for eachset of questions that belongs to the same line-item. In one preferredembodiment, the prior-to-the-latest test results are test results fromthe test immediately before the latest test. In another preferredembodiment, each overall score reflects the student's degree offorgetfulness as a function of time for that group of questions. Basedon the calculated overall scores, the score generator updates thestudent's test results table to include the latest test results.

Both the pre-requisite analyzer and the inference engine in therecommendation generator can generate recommendations based on thestudent's test results table. The pre-requisite analyzer accessespre-requisite rules, which, based on the complexity levels of the lineitems, determines a complexity-hierarchy among the line-items. Then,applying the complexity-hierarchy to the test results table, thepre-requisite analyzer determines the student's level of understandingin the subject to provide recommendations for the student which, forexample, suggest the student to work on one line-item.

The inference engine accesses a set of relationship rules that definerelationship among the line items and the subject. Then applying the setof relationship rules to the student's test results table, the inferenceengine determines the student's level of understanding in the subject toprovide recommendations for the student.

If there is any conflict among one or more relationship rules with thecontents in the test results table, or if there is any conflict amongtwo or more relationship rules, the inference engine resolves it.Resolving such conflicts ensures a consistent assessment of thestudent's understanding in the subject.

In one preferred embodiment, the report generator accesses a reportformat. Based on the recommendations and the report format, the reportgenerator generates a report, which can provide assessment of thestudent's understanding in line-items of the latest test and theprior-to-the-latest tests, and which can provide action items to improveon the student's understanding in the subject.

The question generator, based on the recommendations, generates a numberof questions, which, in another preferred embodiment, can be categorizedinto at least two line items--one being the one suggested by therecommendations, and the other being different from the one suggested bythe recommendations. The student can take this new set of questions tofurther enhance his understanding in the subject.

Other aspects and advantages of the present invention will becomeapparent from the following detailed description, which, when taken inconjunction with the accompanying drawings, illustrates by way ofexample the principles of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows one preferred embodiment of the educational system in thepresent invention.

FIGS. 2A-B show an example of a preferred system implementing thepresent system.

FIG. 3 shows a set of preferred steps to implement the presentinvention.

FIG. 4 shows a set of steps to generate overall score in the presentinvention.

FIG. 5 shows an example of a test results table in the presentinvention.

FIG. 6 shows one preferred embodiment of the inference engine generatingrecommendation for the student in the present invention.

FIG. 7 shows one preferred set of steps for the pre-requisite analyzerto generate recommendations for the student in the present invention.

FIG. 8 shows an example of a hierarchy in the present invention.

FIG. 9 shows one set of preferred steps to generate report by the reportgenerator in the present invention.

FIG. 10 shows one set of steps to generate questions by the questiongenerator in the present invention.

Same numerals in FIGS 1-10 are assigned to similar elements in all thefigures. Embodiments of the invention are discussed below with referenceto FIGS. 1-10. However, those skilled in the art will readily appreciatethat the detailed description given herein with respect to these figuresis for explanatory purposes as the invention extends beyond theselimited embodiments.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

In one preferred embodiment, a subject is divided into major-topics,with each major-topic subdivided into minor-topics, and with eachminor-topic further subdivided into line-items. For example, the subjectis mathematics; it is divided into major-topics, such as high schoolalgebra, which is sub-divided into minor topics, such as integers, whichis further sub-divided into line items, such as addition. Each line-itemhas a number of complexity levels, such as multiplying numbers with twodigits is more difficult than multiplying numbers with one digits. Otherpreferred embodiments can have only the subject and line-items. Anotherpreferred embodiment can have more levels below the line-items.

A student takes a test on the subject. Each question in the test belongsto a line-item, and has a complexity level, which may range from 1 to 9.Consider the line item of addition and subtraction of fractions withcommon denominator. The degree of complexity of such a question depends,for example, on the number of fractions or terms in the mathematicalexpression, and the number of digits of the numerator. For example,1/2+3/2 is less complex than 1/2+3/2+7/2 since the latter has moreterms; and 1/76+7/76 is less complex than 43/76+59/76 since the latterhas more digits than the former.

In one preferred embodiment, the latest test taken by the studentinvolves one or more line-items, with questions covering a range ofcomplexity levels, as in a conventional test. In another preferredembodiment, the questions in the latest test belong to the sameline-item and are of the same complexity level.

FIG. 1 shows one preferred embodiment of the educational system 100 inthe present invention. The system includes a number of components, suchas a score generator 102 coupled to a recommendation generator 104. Therecommendation generator 104 is coupled to a report generator 110 and aquestion generator 112. The different components within the system doesnot have to reside in one computer. In another embodiment, the differentcomponents in the system are within more than one computing device, andthe computing devices can exchange information through a computernetwork or a storage medium or other means. The storage medium, such asa floppy disk, can be detached from the system. In one preferredembodiment, the system also includes a number of storage media, such asa test-results-storage medium 113, an analysis-rules-storage medium 114,a questions-storage medium 120, a tested-questions-storage medium 122,and a report-storage medium 124, which is coupled to a query processor126 to query the report-storage medium 124. In another preferredembodiment, one or more of the different storage media are not withinthe system. In yet another preferred embodiment, the system does notinclude any one of the above storage media.

FIG. 2A shows an example of a preferred system implementing the presentsystem, preferably in software. For example, the score generator and therecommendation generator can be in a server computer 202, while thequestion generator and the report generator can be in a client computer204. In such an embodiment, the different computers can communicate witheach other through a dedicated communication link, or through a computernetwork 206. FIG. 2B shows the client computer 204, typically includinga bus 209 connecting a number of components, such as a processing unit210, a main memory 212, an I/O controller 214, a peripheral controller216, a graphics adapter 218 and a network interface adapter 220. The I/Ocontroller 214 is connected to components, such as a harddisk drive 222and a floppy disk drive 224. The peripheral controller 216 is connectedto components, such as a keyboard 226. The graphics adapter 218 isconnected to a monitor 228; and the network interface adapter 220 isconnected to the network 206.

Score Generator

After the student takes a test--the latest test--it is graded. Thegrading process will be explained later. Assume that the latest test hasbeen graded. FIG. 3 shows a set of preferred steps 400 to implement thepresent invention. First, the score generator accesses 402 test resultsto generate overall scores for a test results table. FIG. 4 shows thestep of generating overall scores in more detail.

The latest test results with test information are accessed 425 by thescore generator 102 and the test-results-storage medium 113, whichstores the test results. In one preferred embodiment, the testinformation includes the student's identity and the time the latest testwas taken. Based on the student's identity, the score generator 102 alsoaccesses 427 the student's prior-to-the-latest test results from thetest-results-storage medium 113. In another preferred embodiment, thelatest test results and the test information are only directly accessedby the score generator 102, which is coupled to the test-results-storagemedium 113.

In one preferred embodiment, the prior-to-the-latest test results are inthe test results table, which is student-specific. FIG. 5 shows anexample of such a table, 250. Preferably, it has a general entry 252,storing the identity of the student who took the test, 261, such as thestudent's name or social security number.

In one preferred embodiment, the table also includes a number ofspecific entries, such as 262 and 264. Every time the student takes atest, the score generator creates one or more additional specificentries into the table. Each specific entry, such as the entry 262 forthe prior-to-the-latest test results, identifies a set of questions andincludes attributes, such as its subject 254, its major-topic 256, itsminor-topic 258, its line-item 266, the complexity 268 of the group ofquestions, the test score 270 for that group of questions, the time thetest with that group of questions was taken 260, and an overall score272, which was calculated 429 by the score generator 102 based on thestudent's test scores for questions with the same attributes. If thelatest test only has questions from one line-item and with onedifficulty level, then the table will be increased by one more specificentry.

There are a number of preferred methods for the score generator tocalculate the overall score for each entry. One preferred way is to findthe average of all test scores with the same attributes from all testresults.

Another preferred way to calculate the overall score includes time as afactor to reflect the student's degree of forgetfulness. It has beenfound that one's degree of forgetfulness typically follows anexponential function--the longer the time elapses, the more one forgets.If a student has taken a SAT years ago, the effect of that test on thelearning process should be minimal. One way to represent such anexponential drop is to have the overall score be dependent on a weightedcombination of the test score of the latest test and the overall scoreof the prior-to-the-latest tests. If the weight for the latest score ismore than the weight for the prior-to-the-latest overall score, thecalculation has the effect of putting more emphasis on the latest testscore. The following calculation shows such a representation has anexponential effect: ##EQU1## Where t1 is earlier than t2; t2 is earlierthan t3;

t3 is earlier than t4;

OS(x)=Overall Score of a test taken at time x;

S(x)=The score of a test taken at time x;

0.4=The weight for the overall score of the prior-to-the-latest tests;and

0.6=The weight for the overall score of the latest test.

As shown by the above example, the effect of an early test dropsexponentially as one takes more tests, which typically implies wideningthe time gap between the latest test and the early test.

Another way to show an exponential effect is to directly multiply theprior-to-the-latest overall score by a weight, raised to a power thatdepends on the time between the latest test and the prior-to-the-latesttest. An example is shown as follows, with n being the number of weeksbetween the time the latest test was taken and the time theprior-to-the-latest test was taken:

    Overall.sub.-- score of the latest test=(1-0.6 (n+1))*latest test score+0.6 (n+1)*prior to the latest overall score.

In another preferred embodiment, the weight for the prior-to-the-latestoverall score is zero. In this situation, the score generator ignoresthe prior-to-the-latest overall score, and the overall score of thelatest test is just the test score of the latest test. For such anembodiment, the main function of the score generator becomes accessingthe latest test results, and then passing them on to the recommendationgenerator.

After the overall-score for a group of questions with the same line-itemand difficulty level is calculated, a specific entry is created, such as265, to update the test results table. The updated test results table isstored in the test-results-storage medium. If in the future, the studenttakes another test with the same line-item and difficulty level as in265, when the score generator 102 is searching for theprior-to-the-latest overall score, the generator 102 searches for themost recently calculated overall scores. This means that the overallscore in 265 becomes the prior-to-the-latest overall score to be used tocalculate the new overall-score.

Recommendation Generator

In one preferred embodiment, the recommendation generator 104 accesses408 the test results table and a set of analysis rules to generaterecommendations for the student. The test results table is accessed fromthe test-results-storage medium. In another preferred embodiment, therecommendation generator 104 directly accesses the table from the scoregenerator.

In one preferred embodiment, the recommendation generator includes aninference engine 106; in another preferred embodiment, therecommendation generator 104 includes a pre-requisite analyzer 108. Inyet another preferred embodiment, the recommendation generator 104includes both the inference engine 106 and the pre-requisite analyzer108.

The recommendation generator 104 is coupled to the analysis-rule-storagemedium 114, which stores a set of subject-specific analysis rules. Forthe embodiment with the inference engine 106, the analysis rules includea set of relationship rules 116. For the embodiment with thepre-requisite analyzer, the analysis rules include a set ofpre-requisite rules 118.

Inference Engine

FIG. 6 shows one preferred embodiment of the inference engine 106generating recommendation for the student. First, the engine accesses450 the set of relationship rules from the analysis-rule-storage medium.These rules define the relationship among different areas in thesubject, such as the relationship among the line-items, theminor-topics, the major-topics and the subject. Then the inferenceengine applies 452 the relationship rules 116 to entries in the testresults table 250 to determine 454 the student's understanding level inthe subject. In one preferred embodiment, each relationship rule is ofthe following format:

(consequence, condition1, condition2, . . . ).

If all the conditions are satisfied, the consequence is true. If any oneof the conditions is not satisfied, the consequence is false.

These rules can be used in many different preferred ways. One preferredway is an if-then-else statement within a program, such as:

If the overall-score of a line-item (such as integeraddition/subtraction or int +/-) at

a specific complexity level>90 then grade:=A else if overall-score>75then grade:=B

else if overall-score>60 then grade:=C

else if overall-score>50 then grade:=D

else grade:=F.

If the grade of (Int +/-)=A and

the grade of (Int *,/)=A and

the grade of (Int Factorization)=A and

the grade of (Int common divisor) is better than or equal to B

then the grade of Int:=A.

In the above examples, the symbol ":=" denotes an assignment operator;also a grade is similar to a student's mastery level in that item. Inanother preferred embodiment, a grade is transformed to a description interms of mastery level, such as weak or strong in that item.

In one preferred embodiment, the relationship rules also determine anumber of factors, such as (1) the grade in each line-item of aminor-topic before one is considered strong in that minor-topic; (2) thegrade in each minor-topic of a major-topic before one is consideredstrong in that major-topic; and (3) the grades in each major-topic ofthe subject before one is considered strong in that subject. Based onthe relationship rules, the inference engine can infer not only how wellthe student performs in a specific complexity level of a line-item, butalso how well the student performs in a minor-topic, or a major-topic,or even the subject itself

In another preferred embodiment, each relationship rule is representedin a table of attributes with one attribute being the consequence andthe others conditions. As an example, for the line-item at the specifieddifficulty level, the grades or consequence and the conditions at thatdifficulty level are:

    ______________________________________                                        Grade/                                                                        Consequence                                                                            Condition                                                            ______________________________________                                        A        Overall score of the line item > 90                                  B        90 >= Overall score of the line item > 75                            C        75 >= Overall score of the line item > 60                            D        60 >= Overall score of the line item > 50                            F        Overall score of the line item <= 50                                 ______________________________________                                        Consequence                                                                            Condition                                                            ______________________________________                                        G(Int +/-): = A                                                                        G(Int +/- A) at level 8 = A.                                         G(Int): = A                                                                            G(Int +/-) = A, G(Int *,/) = A, G(Int factorization) = A,                     G(Int common divisor) is better than or equal to                     ______________________________________                                                 B.                                                               

In the above example, the term "G" denotes "the grade of."

In yet another preferred embodiment, the relationship rule isrepresented by a set of Horn's clauses in a logic programming language,such as prolog. For example,

G(Int +/-) is A if Overall-score (Int +/-)>90

G(Int +/-) is B if 90>=Overall-score (Int +/-)>75

G(Int +/-) is C if 75>=Overall-score (Int +/-)>60

G(Int +/-) is D if 60>=Overall-score (Int +/-)>50

G(Int +/-) is F if Overall-score (Int +/-)<=50

G(Int) is A if G(Int +/-) is A

and G(Int *,/) is A

and G(Int factorization) is A

and G(Int Common Division) is better than B.

G(Int) is A if G(Int +/-) is A

and G(Int *,/) is A

and G(Int factorization) is A

and G(Int Common Division) is B.

Some examples of relationship rules describing the relationship amongdifferent line-items, or minor-topics or major-topics are as follows:

Weak in algebra implies weak in geometry;

Weak in integers implies weak in fraction;

Weak in algebra implies weak in trigonometry; and

Weak in geometry implies weak in analytic geometry.

Typically, relationship rules are based on expert knowledge on generalrelationship among different areas in a subject. The way to generate therules to form the relationships should be well known to experts in thesubject--the more knowledgeable the expert, the more complete the set ofrules.

In the above examples, the inference engine operates on the test resultstable to generate 412 recommendations. In one preferred embodiment, theengine operates on the latest overall-scores and the prior-to-the-latestoverall scores. For example, one latest overall score indicates that thestudent is very proficient in fractional +/- without common denominator,and one prior-to-the-latest overall score indicates that the student isvery proficient in fractional *,/ with integer. Based on the two overallscores, the inference engine can provide a recommendation that thestudent should work on fractional *,/ without common denominator.

Note that the present invention does not require the student to takemany tests. If the student has not done enough questions, then theinference engine would indicate that she has only reached a certainstate, such as passing only a minor-topic, not a major-topic of asubject.

In one preferred embodiment, the inference engine can resolve 456relationship rules that are in conflict, or are not fully consistent.For example,

Rule 1: If a student is weak in algebra, then the student is weak ingeometry.

Rule 2: If a student is weak in geometry, then the student is weak intrigonometry.

The inference engine, based on rules 1 and 2, derives Rule 3:

Rule 3: If a student is weak in algebra, the student must be weak intrigonometry. Conversely, if a student is strong in trigonometry, thestudent must be strong in algebra.

Rule 4: A student strong in trigonometry may not be strong in algebra.

The derived rule 3 is in conflict with rule 4. Then, the inferenceengine derives and adds the following rule as one of the relationshiprules:

Rule 5: If a student is strong in trigonometry, but there is no data,latest or prior-to-the-latest, to show the student's ability in algebra,the student should work on algebra next. In the future, this new ruletakes precedence over the conflicting rules. With rule 5 applied beforerules 1 and 2, the system will not derive rule 3.

Another way to resolve the conflict is to reshuffle the order ofapplication of the rules. For the above example, one way to resolve theconflict between rule 4 and rule 3 is to apply rule 4 before applyingrules 1 and 2.

In another preferred embodiment, the inference engine can resolve 458one or more relationship rules in conflict with the contents in the testresults table, such as the overall scores. In one preferred embodiment,rules in conflict are disabled. For example, with the above rule 1 torule 3 still active:

The student's overall scores indicate that the student is strong intrigonometry, but weak in algebra. Such scores are in conflict with rule3. Under such a situation, the inference engine would disable rule 1 forthis student. Without rule 1, the engine will not be able to derive rule3, and there will be no rules in conflict with the overall scores.

Reshuffling the rules, such as rules 1, 2 and 4 above, can also resolvethe conflict among the rules and the contents in the test results table,such as the overall scores.

Another preferred way to resolve conflicts is to associate a credit witheach rule. The credit is advanced by a certain amount if itscorresponding rule is used to generate a recommendation. However, thecredit of a rule is decremented by another amount if the rule is foundto be in conflict with another rule or with the contents in the testresults table. In one preferred embodiment, the increment and thedecrement amount are the same. In another preferred embodiment, eitherthe increment or the decrement amount is zero. The order of applicationof rules is based on the credits of the rules--a rule with a largercredit is applied before a rule with a smaller credit.

Yet another preferred approach to resolve a conflict with the contentsin the test results table is to add a new rule, which has precedenceover non-new rules. Based on the above example, to prevent conflict withrules 1-3, the following new rule is added:

If a student is strong in trigonometry, but weak in algebra, the studentshould work on algebra.

In a number of the above situations, the modified rules or credits arepreferably stored in the analysis-rule-storage medium. In case when thechange in rules is student-specific, the student's identity is alsostored with the corresponding rules. One preferred method to accommodatethe modified or student-specific rules is to store all such rules in theanalysis-rule-storage medium. When the recommendation analyzer accessesrules from the analysis-rule-storage medium, it retrieves all theunmodified or generic rules and the modified or student-specific rules.If a generic rule has a student-specific version, the student-specificrule is used instead of the generic rule.

Pre-Requisite Analysis

FIG. 7 shows one preferred set of steps for the pre-requisite analyzerto generate 408' recommendations for the student. The analyzer accesses502 the pre-requisite rules from the analysis-rule-storage medium togenerate a complexity-hierarchy. The pre-requisite analyzer then applies504 the hierarchy to entries in the test results table 250, such as theoverall scores, to determine 506 the student's understanding level inthe subject.

In one preferred embodiment, each rule includes a line-item and itspre-requisites; for example,

    ______________________________________                                        Line-item        Pre-requisite                                                ______________________________________                                        Frt +/- w/o comm denom                                                                         Frt +/- w/comm denom (7,B), &                                                 Frt +/- w/Int (8,C).                                         ______________________________________                                    

The bracketed numeral and alphabet denote the difficulty level and theminimal grade required. In another preferred embodiment, there are twoinherent pre-requisite rules:

(1) To reach a complexity level requires a passing grade of a lowercomplexity level unless the complexity level is at the lowest complexitylevel; and

(2) Advancing to the next line-item starts at the lowest complexitylevel of that line-item.

The complexity-hierarchy describes the pre-requisites, and the grade ormastery that a student achieves for each pre-requisite before thestudent can advance to the next level of complexity. In order for thestudent to advance to a line-item, the student has to satisfy all of thepre-requisites of that line-item according to the complexity-hierarchy.

FIG. 8 shows an example of such an hierarchy 300 with many nodes, whereeach node is a line-item, such as the node Int Common Divisor, 302. Thenodes are inter-connected to form the hierarchy.

In one preferred embodiment, moving up the hierarchy implies taking atest or working on a line-item that is harder. To move up thecomplexity-hierarchy, such as to move to a certain complexity level in aline-item, the student has to satisfy all of the pre-requisites of thatcomplexity level in the line-item. For example, the complexity-hierarchyindicates that one must have a B grade or better in int +/- (level 9)before one can take the test for the first level of fractional additionand subtraction with common denominator. A student has achieved anoverall score of 98, or a grade A in int +/- at a complexity level of 9.Based on the student's overall score, the pre-requisite analyzerprovides the following recommendation: Since the student has a grade Ain int +/- (level 9), the student can take the test for or should workon the first level of fractional addition and subtraction.

There are a number of preferred ways to apply the complexity-hierarchyto the contents in the test results table, such as the overall scores.One preferred way is known as a depth-first search, in which thepre-requisite analyzer analyzes the nodes in the hierarchy, from thetop-down, starting, for example, from the line-item with the highestcomplexity. At every node, the analyzer would test for satisfaction ofall of its pre-requisites. At least the first node where all of itspre-requisites is satisfied will be recommended.

Another preferred way is known as a breadth-first search, in which thepre-requisite analyzer analyzes the nodes in the hierarchy, from thebottom-up, starting, for example, from the least complex line-item. Thefollowing programming steps describe such an approach:

Recommend₋₋ list:={ }; Recommendation list is initially empty

For each PRule

; A PRule is a pre-requisite rule, which includes, for example, a lineitem

; and its pre-requisites.

Begin RLI:={ }; RLI=Recommended line-item. For the time being, it isempty.

LI:=Line-item(PRule); LI=the Line-item of the PRule

If student's overall score in the LI is good

Then apply non-subject-specific rules to decide

if LI should be recommended

; these rules will be described later in the specification

Else If student's overall score in the LI is bad

Then RLI:={LI}; recommend the line-item

Else Begin; student has not attempted the line item

PRS:=Pre-requisites(PRule)

; PRS=All pre-requisites in the PRule

For each PR in PRS; PR=A pre-requisite for the line-item

If PR is not satisfied

Then quit loop

If all PR's are satisfied

Then RLI:=(LI); Should work on this LI

End

Recommend₋₋ list:=Recommend₋₋ list+RLI

End

In the above program, any description in a line after the symbol ";" isa comment.

In another preferred embodiment, if at least one but not allpre-requisites of a pre-requisite rule is satisfied, the recommendationmay include the line-items of the unsatisfied pre-requisites.

A further preferred embodiment to apply the complexity-hierarchy isthrough a direct transformation technique, such as using a table lookup,with each pre-requisite rule being a table entry, which contains aline-item and its pre-requisites.

Another preferred way to apply the complexity-hierarchy is based onformulae. For example, a prolog program with a set of Horn's clausesdescribes the complexity-hierarchy. Each pre-requisite rule isrepresented by a Horn's clause. A recommendation is determined byresolving the Horn's clauses.

Again the pre-requisite rules are based on expert knowledge on asubject. The way to generate the rules should be well known to theexperts in the subject--the more knowledgeable the expert, the morecomplete the set of rules. Even though the rules may be incomplete, oncethe hierarchy is established, there will not be any conflicts inapplying it.

Both the relationship rules and the pre-requisite rules can be enhancedby adding new rules or modifying the rules, as suggested, for example,by experts in the field, by new findings based on student results, bychanges in the educational system or by changes in the educationaltrend. As an example, due to advances in the biological world, moreline-items should be added into the subject biology. Thus, new rulesand/or new levels in the hierarchy should be added accordingly.

The rules might have to be modified from time to time if theinter-relationship among them has changed. For example, in the subjectof electrical engineering, if an expert has discovered a student with abetter understanding in solid state physics (a major-topic) advancesmuch faster in semiconductor fabrication technique (anothermajor-topic), then solid state physics becomes a pre-requisite forsemiconductor fabrication technique.

Also, the line-items in an hierarchy may be partially merged. One maynot have to achieve an A at the highest level of a line-item before onecan advance to another line-item. For example, one pre-requisite forantenna theory may be a decent understanding in electromagnetic theory.So a student only requires to achieve a grade B or above in level 5 ofelectromagnetic theory before he can work on antenna theory. However,for another student who wants to master microwave theory and technique,the present invention would require her to achieve a grade B or above inlevel 8 of electromagnetic theory.

In another preferred embodiment, the recommendation generator other thangenerating recommendations, also makes available the test results tableat its output.

Report Generation

FIG. 9 shows one set of preferred steps to generate report 414 by thereport generator. First, the report generator accesses 552 arecommendation from the recommendation generator and accesses 550 areport format. Based on the accessed information, the report generatorgenerates 554 a report for the student.

In one preferred embodiment, the recommendation includes one or morerecommendation entries, with each entry denoting a line-item and thecomplexity level that the student should work on or the next set ofquestions should be in. One example of a recommendation entry is asfollows:

(subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity).

In one embodiment, the report, based on the recommendations, provides anassessment of the student's strengths and weaknesses in different areasof the subject. The report may further provide action items indicatingways for the student to improve on the subject. For example, the reportmay suggest the student to spend more time on simple multiplication anddivision.

In one preferred embodiment, the report generator also extracts thestudent's identity from the test results table at the output of therecommendation generator. The report generator based on the student'sidentity, accesses the report format desired by the student from thereport-storage medium 124. For example, the format can require printingthe student's performance in each line-item of the latest test.

There are different preferred report formats. One format is thetabulation of (a) latest test scores and overall scores for differentline-items based on the test results table. Another is the tabulation of(b) mastery levels or grade levels of line-items, minor-topics,major-topics and subject. The report format can also be a tabulation of(c) line-items to be studied for the next test. Another report formatcan be a tabulation of (d) weak and strong line-items, minor-topics,major-topics and subjects. Students are more likely to be interested in(a) to (c). Teachers are likely to be more interested in (b) and (d).Evaluators on the performance of the student are likely to be moreinterested in (a) and (b).

Note that the format does not have to be in a tabulated form. Othereasy-to-digest formats are also preferred, such as showing the overallscores in each area of the latest test in graphical form or in ahierarchy.

In another preferred embodiment, the report is stored in thereport-storage medium 124, which is coupled to a query processor 126.The query processor includes a query program to query 556 the report.The processor 126 can be accessed by students, teachers and evaluators,who can ask queries such as: What should I study for the next test; whatare my weak subject areas; or did the student pass the test. The queryprogram, based on the report, provides appropriate answers. Queryprograms are well-known in the art, and will not be further described inthis application.

In yet another preferred embodiment, the query processor 126 with itsquery program is coupled to the report generator 110 to query the reportgenerated.

Question Generator

The recommendation is accessed by the question generator. In onepreferred embodiment, the recommendation includes a number ofrecommendation entries in the following format:

(subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity).

For each recommendation entry, in one preferred embodiment, the questiongenerator 112 generates a number of questions.

There are a number of ways to generate questions for each recommendationentry. In one preferred embodiment, the question generator 112 accessesa fixed question table from a question-storage medium 120; in anotherpreferred embodiment, the question generator 112 accesses a schema tablefrom the question-storage medium 120. To generate a question, thequestion generator can select a question based on either the fixedquestion table or the schema table that matches the recommendationentry.

Fixed Question Table

In one preferred embodiment, the fixed question table contains a fixedset of question entries, each of which is of the following format:

(subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity, qid, qbody,answer),

where qid is the identity of the question, which is a unique identifierfor identifying the question; and qbody is the body of the questiondescribing the question. In another preferred embodiment, the formatdoes not have a separate qid attribute--the body of the question is usedas the unique identifier. A number of examples of the fixed questionsare shown in the following working embodiment.

Schema Table

In another preferred embodiment, the schema table contains a fixed setof question entries or schemata, each of which is of the followingformat:

(subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity, qid, qschema,srule, arule),

where qschema is the question body with variables; srule specifies howthe values of the variables are determined; and arule specifies how theanswer is to be deduced after the values of the variables aredetermined. A number of examples are shown in the following workingembodiment.

After selecting a question schema, the question generator 112 wouldapply the srule to replace all the variables in the question schema togenerate the actual question body to be used in the test. The questiongenerator then calculates the answer to that question body using thearule.

Using either one of the two tables, the question generator selectsquestions according to the recommendation entries. In one preferredembodiment, as shown in FIG. 10, each recommendation entry suggestsquestions to be at a certain complexity, or suggests the student to workon a line item 602 at a complexity level. The question generator,following the recommendation, generates 604 N1 questions of thespecified complexity (cm), N2 questions of a different complexity level.In another preferred embodiment, the different complexity is the nexthigher complexity level if cm is not the highest complexity level, andthe embodiment further generates N3 questions of the previous lowercomplexity level if cm is not the lowest complexity level. For example,N1 is a random number ranging from 2 to 5, with N2 and N3 also beingrandom numbers chosen between 0 and N1. Thus, for each entry, thequestion generator, based on a known complexity level, automaticallygenerates questions at that complexity level, and at higher and lowercomplexity levels. For these embodiments, the tests generated containmore than a single line-item.

In another preferred embodiment, to avoid repeating a question, thequestion generator 112 detects duplicates in the latest question set tobe generated. Also, the question generator 112 accesses all of thequestions the student has attempted from the tested-questions-storagemedium 122, to ensure that there is no duplication with any previouslygenerated questions. In yet another preferred embodiment, in testingduplicates with any previously generated questions, the questiongenerator only considers questions previously generated within a certaintime frame, such as within one year of the latest test, because, mostprobably, the student does not remember questions done more than acertain time frame away.

In one preferred embodiment, to avoid duplicates from questions selectedbased on the fixed question table, if the qid of the newly generatedquestion matches that of a previously generated question, the questionwill not be selected.

In another preferred embodiment, for questions selected based on theschema table, to avoid duplicates, if the qid of the newly generatedquestion matches a question in the newly generated test, the newlygenerated question would not be selected. This precaution does notanalyze questions generated in all the previous tests.

Eventually a set of questions is generated for a future test to be givento the student. In one preferred embodiment, the set of questionsgenerated is stored in the tested-question-storage medium 122 tofacilitate the selection of the next set of questions, if required. Inanother preferred embodiment, only the qid of each question generatedwill be stored in the tested-question-storage medium 122.

Grading the Latest Test

After the student has taken a test consisting of the question bodies ofthe questions generated, grading can be done by conventional means. Thefinished test, which includes not just the answered questions, but alsothe student's identity and the time the test was taken, are sent to areader, 128, which can be a computer. The reader 128 also receives thequestion entries from the question generator 112 to access the answersto the questions. Based on the question entries, the reader grades thefinished test and generates the test results. In one preferredembodiment, the test results are in a table format, with one entry forone difficulty level of a line-item, such as the following:

(subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity, test score).

The test results together with some test information, such as thestudent's identity and the time the test was taken, are sent to thescore generator 102. In another preferred embodiment, the test resultsand the test information are also sent to the test-result-storage-medium113.

In another preferred embodiment, the invented educational system 100includes the reader 128, which can be a computer with a scanner to scanin the student's finished test.

New Student

In the above description, for some embodiment, there is an assumptionthat the student's desired report format is in the report-storage mediumand the student has taken tests administered by the system. However, ifthe student has not interacted with the system before, then in onepreferred embodiment, the report generator first asks the student toenter his identification, his age and his desired report format. Thiscan be done, for example, through the keyboard 226. Once entered, theyare stored in the report-storage medium. If the student does not knowwhat format he desires, one default report format may be to makeavailable the student's performance in each complexity-level of eachline-item in the test taken by the student.

In another preferred embodiment, the report-storage medium also includesa number of complexity levels for the subject. Each complexity leveltracks the skill of average students at an age group. In one preferredembodiment, there are complexity levels covering age groups ranging fromage 5 to age 65. Based on a student's age in the report-storage medium,the question generator, which is coupled to the report-storage medium,generates the first set of questions for the student, who has notinteracted with the system before. The complexity level of this set ofquestions follows the skill level of average students at the student'sage group. The same method can be applied to generate a set of questionsfor a student whose identity and age are in the system, but who has nottaken any tests in a specific subject administered by the system.

Working Example

The invention will be further clarified by a consideration of thefollowing examples, which are intended to be purely exemplary of usingthe invention.

The present invention can be applied to different subjects, for example,mathematics, English, history, geography, physics, chemistry andbiology. In the present example, the invention is applied tomathematics.

Prior-to-the-latest Results

The system accesses a student's test results table on mathematics. Eachtable includes a general entry and many specific entries. The generalentry includes the student's identity. Each specific entry in the tablecorresponds to a group of questions in a test, and has a list ofattributes, such as:

(Subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, . . . ,degree-of-complexity, test score, time, overall-score).

The subject is mathematics. The following serves as examples of themajor-topics, minor-topics and line-items:

Major Topics Under Mathematics

Calculus

Geometry

Trigonometry

High School Algebra (HSA)

Minor Topics Under High School Algebra

Decimal Numbers

Polynomials

Linear Equations

Quadratic Equations

Integers (Int)

Line Items Under Integers

Addition & Subtraction

Multiplication

Division

Prime Numbers

Factorization

Common Divisor

Fractions (Frt)

Line Items Under Fractions

Addition and Subtraction (+/-) with Common Denominator

+/- with Integers

+/- w/o Common Denominator

Multiplication and Divisions (*,/) with Integers

*,/ with fraction

Compound Fractions

Fraction Reduction

Ratios and Proportions

The degree of complexity ranges from 1 to 9 to represent the levels forthe group of questions. The test score denotes the score received by thestudent in the test. The time denotes the time the test wasadministered. The overall-score denotes an overall performancepercentage ranging from 0-100%.

One way to calculate the overall-score is form the average of all testscores for the line-item at the specific degree of complexity, such as:

Overall₋₋ score=(sum of all scores: prior-to-the-latest+latest)/(numberof tests).

Another calculation depends on a weighted combination of the latest testscore and the prior-to-the-latest overall score, such as:

Overall₋₋ score=0.6*latest score+0.4*prior₋₋ to₋₋ the₋₋ latest₋₋overall₋₋ score.

With the line item being Fractions, a number of entries can be asfollows:

(Mathematics, HSA, Frt, +/- with comm denom., 1, 3/16/95, 95, 90).

(Mathematics, HSA, Frt, +/- with comm denom., 2, 4/16/95, 98, 86).

(Mathematics, HSA, Frt, +/- with comm denom., 3, 5/16/95, 87, 75).

(Mathematics, HSA, Frt, +/- w/o comm denom., 1, 6/16/95, 75, 78).

(Mathematics, HSA, Frt, +/- w/o comm denom., 2, 7/16/95, 70, 67).

(Mathematics, HSA, Frt, +/- w/o comm denom., 3, 8/16/95, 65, 70).

Analysis Rules

Relationship Rules

Some examples are as follows, with "GR" denoting a grade, and "P"denoting pass.

Complex: (Subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity,condition)→GR

(Math, HSA, Int, +/-, 9, overall-score>=90)→P.

(Math, HSA, Int, *, 9, 75<=overall₋₋ score<90)→B.

(Math, HSA, Int, factorization, 9, overall₋₋ score>90)→A.

Line Item: (Subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, condition)→GR.

(Math, HSA, Int, factorization, "level 9 pass")→A.

(Math, HSA, Int, factorization, "level 8 pass")→B.

(Math, HSA, Int, factorization, "level 7 pass")→C.

(Math, HSA, Int, factorization, "level 6 pass")→D.

(Math, HSA, Int, factorization, "level 7 pass")→P.

Minor-Topic: (Subject, major-topic, minor-topic, condition)→GR.

(Math, HSA, Int, "Pass all line items excluding factorization")→P.

(Math, HSA, Frt, "Pass all line items excluding ratios &proportions")→P.

Major-Topic: (Subject, major-topic, condition)→GR.

(Math, HSA, "Pass all minor-topics with 80% in A")→A.

(Math, HSA, "Pass all minor-topics with B or better")→B.

(Math, HSA, "Pass 45% of all minor-topics")→D.

Subject: (Subject, condition)→GR.

(Math, "Pass 75% of all major-topics")→C.

Complexity-Hierarchy

FIG. 4 shows a complexity-hierarchy for fractional reduction in the formof a hierarchy diagram. Based on the figure, in order to take the testsfor Frt reduction, one has to achieve a grade B at the sixth level forfractional multiplication and division without common denomination (Frt*,/ w/o comm denom), a grade of B at the eighth level for tests for Int.common divisor, and a grade of A at the difficulty level of nine forinteger multiplication. To take the tests for Frt *,/ w/o comm denom,one has to achieve a grade C at the seventh level for Frt +/- w/o commdenom, and a grade B at the eighth level of Frt *,/ w/Int.

Question Generation

Fixed Questions

The following examples are for fixed questions with the format for thequestion entry being:

(Subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity, qid, qbody,answer).

Subject: Mathematics.

Major-topic: High School Algebra.

Minor-topic: Fraction.

Line-item: Fraction +/- with common denominator or (Frt +/- w/ commdenom)

    ______________________________________                                        Comp. Qid    Ans.    Qbody                                                    ______________________________________                                        3      81    28/37   What is the sum of 2/37, 3/37, 8/37 and 15/37?           3     261    -2/43   17/43 - 25/43 + 6/43 = ?                                 ______________________________________                                    

Line-item: Fraction *,/ or (Frt *,/)

    ______________________________________                                        Comp. Qid    Ans.    Qbody                                                    ______________________________________                                        5     214    -12.5%  A supermarket increased                                                       the price of orange juice by 25%                                              in the summer. During fall, it had a sale and                                 reduced the price of orange juice by 30%. What                                was the net change in price?                             ______________________________________                                    

Schema Ouestions

The following examples are for schema questions with the format for thequestion entry being:

(Subject, major-topic, minor-topic, line-item, complexity, qid, qschema,srule, arule)

Subject: Mathematics.

Major-topic: High School Algebra.

Minor-topic: Fraction.

Line-item: Frt +/- w/ comm denom.

    ______________________________________                                        Comp. Qid    Qschema                                                          ______________________________________                                        3      81    What is the sum of x1/y, x2/y, x3/y and x4/y?                          srule: y = random (25, 99), which means a                                            number randomly chosen between 25 and 99.                                     x1 = random (4,49); x2 = random (4,49);                                       x3 = random (4,49); and                                                       x4 = random (4,49).                                                    arule: answer = x1/y + x2/y + x3/y + x4/y.                              3     127    x1/y - x2/y + x3/y = ?                                                 srule: y = random (25,99); x1 = random (4,49);                                       x2 = random (4,49);                                                           and x3 = random (4,49).                                                arule: answer = x1/y - x2/y + x3/y.                                     ______________________________________                                    

Line-item: Frt *,/

    ______________________________________                                        Comp. Qid    Qschema                                                          ______________________________________                                        5     214    A supermarket increased the                                                   price of orange juice by x% in the                                            summer. During fall, it had a sale and reduced the                            price of orange juice by y%. What was the                                     net change in price?                                                   srule: x = random (10,30); and y = x + 10.                                    arule: answer = (1 + x/100)*(1 - y/100) - 1                             ______________________________________                                    

Conclusion

Note that accessing in the present invention can be as simple as justacknowledging the receipt of data from a transmitting source.

In a preferred embodiment, two line-items may cover the same areas butdifferent levels of complexity in a subject. For example, one line-itemcovers complexity levels 1 to 4 of addition/subtraction; and anotherline-item covers complexity levels 5-8 of addition/subtraction. Inanother preferred embodiment, a line-item has only one complexity level.

The subject in the present invention is also very broadly defined.Different subjects that have relationship can be combined into onesubject in the present invention. For example, physics, chemistry andbiology can be combined into the subject called science.

In another preferred embodiment, the score generator only accesses thelatest test results, but not the prior-to-the-latest test results. Thetest scores in the latest test results are accessed by therecommendation generator, which also accesses a set of analysis-rule toanalyze the test scores. Based on the analysis, the recommendationgenerator generates recommendations for the student, such as theline-item that should be improved, or the line-item that should bestudied next or the area in the subject that the student is weak.

The weight for an overall score that reflects the student's degree offorgetfulness does not have to be a constant number for all students andfor all tests. In one preferred embodiment, the weight depends onwhether the student is handicapped in that subject as compared to otherstudents. For example, the subject is English; then the weight for astudent with English as a second language is larger than that for astudent with English being his native language. This is because for thestudent with English as a second language, he is on a steeper learningcurve in learning English than the student with English as his nativelanguage. Thus, for the non-native-speaker, the latest test should bemore emphasized. Such an implementation requires the educational system100 to have access to some of the student's personal information, suchas his ethnic group, country of birth, sex, educational level, geographylocation and school district, so as to decide what weight to use. In onepreferred embodiment, when the report generator 110 asks for thestudent's report format, such personal information is also asked for.After they are entered, they are stored in the report storage medium,and are transferred to the score generator as part of the testinformation.

In another preferred embodiment, the weight depends on the subject. Asubject that emphasizes on concept, such as physics, tends to favor theprior-to-the-latest results. This is to ensure fundamentalunderstanding, and it implies that the weight on the prior-to-the-latestresults should be larger. On the other hand, a subject that emphasizeson skill, such as conversation skill, tends to favor latest results; itimplies that the weight for the latest test results should be larger.

In the present invention, the score generator accesses test results tocalculate overall scores for the recommendation generator. In anotherpreferred embodiment, the score generator just accesses two or more mostrecent test results for the recommendation generator. The recommendationgenerator analyzes the accessed test results by a set of analysis rulesto come up with recommendations. Thus, in this embodiment, the scoregenerator does not calculate overall scores, and the rules in therecommendation generator directly operate on the test scores. In oneexample, these operations are based on if-then-else statements, such asif one recent test score in a certain area is of such a grade, andanother recent test score in another area is of such a grade, then thestudent is strong in a certain minor-topic.

The present invention describes the score generator accessing not onlytest results, but also test information. In another preferredembodiment, the test information is included in the test results. Forexample, the student's identity and the time a test was taken areincluded in the test results. In another embodiment, the report storageincludes a default report format to generate reports. In yet anotherpreferred embodiment, the system 100 is for the use of one specificstudent. With the student's identity fixed, no student identity isrequired to be transmitted to the score generator.

In another preferred embodiment, the pre-requisite analyzer does notgenerate a hierarchy; it accesses the pre-requisite rules and appliesthem directly to the test results table to generate recommendations forthe student. The hierarchy is a representation for the pre-requisiterules, and is not a necessity for the rules to be applied to the testresults table.

In the present invention, the different rules do not have to separatelyreside in a storage medium to be accessed by a program. In one preferredembodiment, the rules can be embedded in one or more programs, such asprolog programs or an object-oriented database. In such an embodiment,accessing the rules is similar to querying those programs. Once therules are known, to implement such programs should be obvious to thoseskilled in the art.

In another preferred embodiment, one or more of the components, such asthe recommendation generator, can be implemented on a circuit, such as afield-programmable-gate-array, where the entire program embodying one ormore of the components are burnt into the circuit.

In yet another preferred embodiment, the present invention isimplemented through an object oriented program, with each component asan object. For example, the score generator is an object, and therecommendation generator is another object.

In the present invention, the analysis rules have been described to besubject specific. In another preferred embodiment, some of the analysisrules are non-subject specific. They can be applied to all subjects.Some examples of such rules are as follows:

Consecutively failing a line item twice→Re-test that line-item'spre-requisites.

Consistently scoring poorly in a line item→Re-test that line-item'spre-requisites.

Passing a line-item at a grade of A→No need to re-test.

Also, in the present invention for the sake of simplicity, therecommendation generator, the question generator and the reportgenerator receive the test results table. However, the information inthe table does not have to be tabulated. Also the three generators donot have to access the entire table, but only have to access therequired information in the table.

The present invention repeatedly uses terms such as latest andprior-to-the-latest. In another preferred embodiment, the presentinvention is also applicable to situations when (events happenedprior-to-the-latest) is replaced by (events happened prior to thoseevents), and latest is replaced by prior-to-the-latest.

Other embodiments of the invention will be apparent to those skilled inthe art from a consideration of this specification or practice of theinvention disclosed herein. It is intended that the specification andexamples be considered as exemplary only, with the true scope and spiritof the invention being indicated by the following claims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A computer-aided learning method for assessing astudent's understanding in a subject, the method, using test resultsfrom the latest test and the prior-to-the-latest test results taken bythe student, comprising the steps of:accessing the student'sprior-to-the-latest test results and the latest test results; andanalyzing, by a first computing device that can access a network, thestudent's prior-to-the-latest and the latest test results to generate arecommendation, which provides an assessment on the student'sunderstanding in the subject; wherein the recommendation can betransmitted to a second computing device through the network to be usedby the second computing device.
 2. A computer-aided learning method asrecited in claim 1 wherein the analysis is based on a plurality ofsubject-specific rules.
 3. A computer-aided learning method as recitedin claim 1 further comprising the step of accessing the time that eachtest was taken for generating the recommendation so as to identify thestudent's degree of forgetfulness in the subject as a function of time.4. A computer-aided learning method as recited in claim 1 wherein:thesubject is divided into line-items with at least one line-item beingmore difficult than another line-item; and the latest test includesquestions for different line-items; and the method further comprisingthe steps of generating an overall score for each group of questionshaving the same line-item for generating the recommendation.
 5. Acomputer-aided learning method as recited in claim 1 wherein:thestudent's prior-to-the-latest test results are weighted differently ascompared to the latest test results to generate the recommendation; andthe weight depends on whether the student has any handicap in thatsubject as compared to other students.
 6. A computer-aided learningmethod as recited in claim 1 wherein:the student's prior-to-the-latesttest results are weighted differently as compared to the latest testresults to generate the recommendation; and the weight depends on thewhether the subject emphasizes on fundamental understanding.
 7. Acomputer-aided learning method as recited in claim 1 wherein:theanalysis uses a set of rules; and the method further comprises the stepof resolving conflicts among one or more rules and the latest testresults in order to provide a consistent assessment of the student'sunderstanding in the subject.
 8. A computer-aided learning method asrecited in claim 1 wherein:the analysis uses a set of rules; and themethod further comprises the step of resolving conflicts among two ormore rules in order to provide a consistent assessment of the student'sunderstanding in the subject.
 9. A computer-aided learning method asrecited in claim 1 wherein:the subject is divided into line-items withat least one line-item being more difficult than another line-item; andthe method further comprises the step of establishing acomplexity-hierarchy among a plurality of line-items for generating therecommendation.
 10. A computer-aided learning method as recited in claim1 wherein:the analysis uses a set of relationship rules, which determinethe relationship among at least two line-items; and the method furthercomprises the step of performing inferences based on the set ofrelationship rules for generating the recommendation.
 11. Acomputer-aided learning method as recited in claim 1 further comprisingthe step of generating, based on the recommendation, a report on theassessment.
 12. A computer-aided learning method as recited in claim 11further comprising the step of accessing a report format to generate thereport.
 13. A computer-aided learning method as recited in claim 11further comprising the step of querying the report.
 14. A computer-aidedlearning method as recited in claim 1 further comprising the step ofgenerating, based on the recommendation, a plurality of questions forthe student to work on.
 15. A computer-aided learning method as recitedin claim 14 wherein:the subject is divided into line-items with at leastone line-item being more difficult than another line-item; therecommendation includes recommending the student to work on a line-item;and the plurality of questions can be categorized into at least twoline-items, one being the one suggested by the recommendation.
 16. Acomputer-aided learning method as recited in claim 1 wherein the firstcomputing device is a server computer, and the second computing deviceis a client computer.
 17. A computer-aided learning method for assessinga student's understanding in a subject, the method, using the latesttest results from the latest test taken by the student, comprising thesteps of:accessing a set of analysis rules; resolving conflicts amongone or more rules and the latest test results; and generating arecommendation, by a first computing device that can access a network,based on the student's latest test and the rules after conflicts havebeen resolved if there were any conflicts to resolve, so that therecommendation provides an assessment on the student's understanding inthe subject; wherein the recommendation can be transmitted to a secondcomputing device through the network to be used by the second computingdevice.
 18. A computer-aided learning method for assessing a student'sunderstanding in a subject, which is divided into line-items with atleast one line-item being more difficult than another line-item, themethod, using the student's test results on the subject, comprising thesteps of:calculating one or more overall scores based on the student'slatest test results; applying, by a first computing device that canaccess a network, a complexity-hierarchy to the one or more overallscores to generate a recommendation, which provides an assessment on thestudent's understanding in the subject; wherein:the complexity-hierarchywas established among a plurality of line-items; and the recommendationcan be transmitted to a second computing device through the network tobe used by the second computing device.
 19. A computer-aided learningmethod for assessing a student's understanding in a subject, which isdivided into line-items with at least one line-item being more difficultthan another line-item, the method, using the student's test results ofthe subject, comprising the steps of:generating, based on the latesttest results, one or more overall scores; accessing a set ofrelationship rules, which determine the relationship among at least twoline-items; and performing, by a first computing device that can accessa network, inferences on the one or more scores based on the set ofrelationship rules to generate a recommendation, which provides anassessment on the student's understanding in the subject; wherein therecommendation can be transmitted to a second computing device throughthe network to be used by the second computing device.
 20. Acomputer-aided learning method for assessing a student's understandingin a subject, which is divided into the line-items with at least oneline-item being more difficult than another line-item, the method, usingthe latest test results from the latest test taken by the student, withthe latest test including questions from more than one line-item,comprising the steps of:accessing a report format; accessing arecommendation, which was generated based on the latest test results bya first computing device that can access a network; and generating areport by a second computing device, based on the recommendation beingtransmitted to the second computing device through the network, andbased on the report format, to provide assessment of the student'sunderstanding in the subject.
 21. A computer-aided learning method forassessing a student's understanding in a subject, which is divided intoline-items with at least one line-item being more difficult than anotherline-item, the method comprising the steps of:recommending the studentto work on a line-item based on analysis performed in a first computingdevice that can access a network; and generating by a question generatora plurality of questions, which can be categorized into at least twoline-items with one being the line-item recommended; wherein therecommendation can be transmitted to a second computing device throughthe network to be used by the second computing device.
 22. Acomputer-aided learning method as recited in claim 21 wherein:theplurality of questions generated are the recently generated questions;and the method further comprises the step of preventing duplication inquestions previously generated within a preset time from the recentlygenerated questions.
 23. A computer-aided learning method for assessinga student's understanding in a subject, which is divided into line-itemswith at least one line-item more difficult than another line-item, themethod, using latest test results from the latest test taken by thestudent, comprising the steps of:accessing the student's latest testresults; and analyzing, by a first computing device that can access anetwork, the student's latest test results using a set ofsubject-specific rules to generate a recommendation, which provides anassessment on the student's understanding in the subject, and suggestsat least one line-item that the student should improve on; wherein therecommendation can be transmitted to a second computing device throughthe network to be used by the second computing device.
 24. Acomputer-aided learning system for assessing a student's understandingin a subject, the system, using test results from the latest test andthe prior-to-the-latest test results taken by the student, comprising:arecommendation generator configured toaccess the student'sprior-to-the-latest test results and the latest test results; andanalyze, by a first computing device that can access a network, thestudent's prior-to-the-latest and the latest test results to generate arecommendation, which provides an assessment on the student'sunderstanding in the subject; wherein the recommendation can betransmitted to a second computing device through the network to be usedby the second computing device.
 25. A computer-aided learning system forassessing a student's understanding in a subject, which is divided intothe line-items with at least one line-item being more difficult thananother line-item, the system, using the latest test results from thelatest test taken by the student, with the latest test includingquestions from more than one line-item, comprising:a report generatorconfigured toaccess a report format; access a recommendation, which wasgenerated based on the latest test results by a first computing devicethat can access a network; and generate a report by a second computingdevice, based on the recommendation being transmitted to the secondcomputing device through the network, and based on the report format, toprovide assessment of the student's understanding in the subject.
 26. Acomputer-aided learning system for assessing a student's understandingin a subject, which is divided into line-items with at least oneline-item being more difficult than another line-item, the systemcomprising:a recommendation generator configured to recommend thestudent to work on a line-item based on analysis performed in a firstcomputing device that can access a network; and a question generatorconfigured to generate a plurality of questions, which can becategorized into at least two line-items with one being the line-itemrecommended; wherein the recommendation can be transmitted to a secondcomputing device through the network to be used by the second computingdevice.